Rehabilitation of Visually Impaired Persons in Separate and General Agencies

Abstract

In 1997, the National Council on Disability recommended that separate Title I vocational rehabilitation (VR) grants to state agencies serving only consumers who are visually impaired should be eliminated. This study found that such separate VR agencies serve consumers who are more socially and economically disadvantaged, have more severe visual impairments, have more secondary disabilities, and incur greater service costs than do general agencies. In addition, various outcome criteria indicate the overall superiority of separate agencies.

Employment Outcomes and Job Quality of Vocational Rehabilitation Consumers With Deaf-Blindness

“…Various VR agency and service-related variables were identified as positive predictors of and risk factors for employment in previous research. Among consumers who are blind or visually impaired, agency type has been associated with employment outcomes, with those served by separate, or blind, agencies having better outcomes (Cavenaugh, 1999; Cavenaugh, Giesen, & Pierce, 2000; Giesen & Cavenaugh, 2013). However, agency type was not a relevant predictor of earnings (Capella-McDonnall, 2001; Estrada-Hernández, 2008), or employment outcomes or job quality for youth (Cimera et al, 2015).…”

Oculo-visual status of newly employed workers in a tertiary institution in Nigeria

“…Evidence shows that even when eye care services are available, they are under used by potential beneficiaries. [17][18][19][20] Data is scant on pre-employment visual screenings in Nigeria and other parts of the world because not many companies or employers of labor set this as a requirement for job placement. Most companies ask for medical screening of which vision test is just a small part of.…”

Individual, agency, and state economic characteristics

“…Previous studies have shown that agencylevel variables, such as programs available to specific populations, agency type, wait times between application and receiving services, cost of services, and if an agency has entered order of selection status (OOS), may also impact a successful closure (Dutta et al, 2008;Honeycutt et al, 2015;Honeycutt & Stapleton, 2013). In relation to agency type, in 1997, the National Council on Disability recommended that separate vocational grants designate specific agencies to serve individuals who are visually impaired (Cavenaugh, Giesen, & Pierce, 2000). Numerous studies have indicated that agencies specifically designed to serve individuals with visual impairments have higher acceptance rates and rehabilitation rates (Cavenaugh et al, 2000;Estrada-Hernandez, 2008;Kitchner, 1982).…”

“…In relation to agency type, in 1997, the National Council on Disability recommended that separate vocational grants designate specific agencies to serve individuals who are visually impaired (Cavenaugh, Giesen, & Pierce, 2000). Numerous studies have indicated that agencies specifically designed to serve individuals with visual impairments have higher acceptance rates and rehabilitation rates (Cavenaugh et al, 2000;Estrada-Hernandez, 2008;Kitchner, 1982). A VR agency enters OOS when it does not have enough funding or resources to serve all applicants who may be eligible for services.…”

“…Medicare (SSA, 2016) Agency Type: Distinguishes between an agency that provides specialized services to individuals with visual impairments or an integrated agency that serves all impairments (Cavenaugh et al, 2000) Status of OOS: Refers to an order of selection for services status that a state-federal VR agency enters when it does not have sufficient funds to serve all eligible individuals (RSA, 2016a).…”